Palm print on Bloodied Bible?

[Caroline]

Whose blood could it be?  The only one who left a significant pool of blood apart from Sheila was Nevill.  No one else had a pool of blood that would coat a hand.  He didn't drag her down to the kitchen to stick her hand in it then carry her back up.Clearly the blood was her own regardless of whether it was a hand print or not. So it could be a hand print! 

The reason why I can't show you a lab report identifying whose blood it was is because the experts decided it was Sheila's blood, that got there from the carpet it wasn't a hand print and thus decided not to bother type testing it.  They viewed it as not being a palm print.  The only prints they found on the Bible were not in blood.

So it wasn't tested? The court of appeal concluded that the stain 'appeared' to have come from the carpet - I have read that, but they didn't say it wasn't a palm print. At the 2002 appeal such experts didn't see the bible, they looked at pictures and that doesn't mean it isn't.

[David1819]

You are denying what has been written (No contamination APART FROM BLOOD)and he has certainly didn't mention OUTER palm (that was you!) and it was changed to WRIST in his later typed statement. He's a doctor for gods sake - he KNOWS the difference between a PALM and WRIST and so do people here. I'd like to see the results of these tests you keep going on about - so far it's just you saying so.

Ha, ha!! You have tried to invent things that were never said with your continues use of the word 'outer' - and are suggesting Venezis doesn't know the difference between a palm and a wrist. I think he might have had to have a good understanding of anatomy before qualifying and plam and wrist are two different things. He wrote both HANDS and PALM suggesting the stain on the nightdress came from the PALM!! A PALM is the INSIDE of a hand.

Your wasting your time arguing with him Caroline. Just let him believe what he wants

Police agree with him. 

Experts who saw those photos agree with him.

[Caroline]

He didn't say anything about the stain being from the inside palm of her hand.  You are the one inventing things and it is pure nonsense you are inventing.  The PALM is the inside of a hand and he said that the print on her nightdress appeared to have been transferred from her right palm - the palm being the INSIDE of a hand.

You want us to believe Vanesis is so stupid he didn't realize he contradicted himself in his type written report by asserting the inside of her hands were free of blood and yet saying the inside of her hands had blood and she she thus left a palm print on her gown.  In order to try to get us to believe he is this stupid you suggest he put in his notes that she had blood inside her hand.  Once again A PALM IS the inside of a hand!

Your straining is for nothing.  The experts do not agree with you and thus the defense never even tried making this argument. Nor would they be able to try at best dishonest propagandists can try to use this in an informal setting like their website to try false creating more suspicion of wrongdoing claiming Vanezis was asked to distort. I don't care what these 'experts' (that you can't name) think - if we all agreed with the experts, there would be no debate.

At the end of the day you are just engaging in the same crap you accuse reader and others of engaging in when you debate against them. No, that's what you're doing and you can always tell when your argument is weak or that you are getting rattled because you get personal - take a breather and clam down dear!! 

[Caroline]

Your wasting your time arguing with him Caroline. Just let him believe what he wants

Probably, but he wrong 

[guest2181]

Tell that to Scipio who has her plugging the first shot with her OUTER Palm!!  I haven't said she put the print on the bible after being shot. Not even sure who's blood it is.

..

There wasn't any blood until she was shot. So erm?   

[Caroline]

..

There wasn't any blood until she was shot. So erm?   

You know for definite that it's her blood?

[David1819]

Probably, but he wrong 

I know but he never accepts it. So why bother?

[Caroline]

I know but he never accepts it. So why bother?

I know, but I want to make sure that he knows that I don't give in either! 

[Caroline]

If I can put my two pen'th in here, is it possible that as she was sitting there, scared, he tossed a bible at her and told her to read it, shot her the first time, she put her hand -PALM- against the wound then instinctively grabbed for the bible -perhaps it had slipped. Voila! Instant PALM print.

There are lots of scenario's but we don't know for definite who's blood is on the bible but if it is a palm print, it doesn't mean it had to get there between the two shots - I certainly didn't say that.

[guest2181]

You know for definite that it's her blood?

I know that you stretching. You know it is not her blood.

You know therefore that it cannot be her hand.

Circular argument. Just stubborn.  :D

[lookout]

 I would say it's June's blood as she was the one mostly covered from head to toe. Sheila wasn't.

[scipio_usmc]

"Vanezis drew a distinction between blood outside her hand and inside her hand."

No he didn't YOU did. Show me where he drew that distinction? A PALM IS THE INSIDE OF THE HAND!!  But a palm is JUST the inside!

I already showed you.  If you paid attention you also would have noticed the mention of nicotine staining which you keep attacking lookout not having a source for.




He referred to the blood on the outside of her hand as being on her wrist and said that is how the blood transferred to her gown.  He said her fingers and inside of her hands were free of blood.  That is if one actually wants to understand what he wrote as opposed to deciding to incorrectly interpret it for their own purposes.

There is an inside palm and outside palm. The outside palm is adjacent to the outer wrist and often simply included with the wrist depending if speaking about both.       

"she ignores the other police who saw her hands saying there was no blood inside, ignoring the photos show no blood Which photo's show no blood? and most important of all ignoring that those who actually inspected the Bible up close in person for the presence of prints found no prints of any kind in blood"

Oh the experts - who were they again?

Look at the lab reports.  If you can't get a hold of them then ask Mike if he won't provide them then you are stuck with just knowing the lab personnel tasked with it.  MadDonnell among others were shown the photos of the insides of her hands and they said the photos showed her hands to be clean.

"They are the ones in the position to know if it was a palm print they saw it close up, they were experts in the field and it was their job to see if such a print existed." So is SUTHURST and look what happened to him 

Like the lab personnel whose job it was to physically inspect the Bible looking for prints it was Sutherst's job to physically inspect the mantle in person to look for scratches?

No Sutherst blew up low quality photos of items that were distant in such photos. 

What happened to Sutherst is he engaged in the same kind of nonsense speculation you engage in without any basis at all to do so.  You are in no greater position than Sutherst was to challenge the experts and in fact an even lesser position than he was.  There were no close ups of the mantle but there were close up photos of her hand showing them clean you haven't seen them because you have no cause to be provided with them. 

So she has no blood on her hand and those 'finger shaped' stains are from her wrist? 

Vanesis doesn't think they were finger shaped he said her wrist made them.  Blowing them up doesn't help at all it is as much of a waste as blowing up the Bible and trying to say you know what made the marks. I'll stick with those who actually inspected the items in person. 

[scipio_usmc]

So it wasn't tested? The court of appeal concluded that the stain 'appeared' to have come from the carpet - I have read that, but they didn't say it wasn't a palm print. At the 2002 appeal such experts didn't see the bible, they looked at pictures and that doesn't mean it isn't.

The experts who spoke to the Court of Appeals referecnced photos showing blood underneat that very locaiton of the Bible.  You want to pretend the blood was simply above the Bible but it was underneath it as well. The bible was sitting in blood.

What the court was told was that they assessed the Bible was placed on top of this blood AFTER it deposited.  One of those who shared this opinion told this very opinion to the defense- Leon MacDonnell.

They are NOT the only ones who have this opinion the opinion was shared by the lab personnel who examined the Bible for prints and found no prints of any kind in blood.  They physically looked at that blood stain and saw no features that would indicate it was a palm print.   

Lot's of things can look like a palm or finger print from a distance- men look like girls from a distance- Nevill appeared to be a woman from a distance.

Those who saw the inside of her hands said they were free of blood and photos confirm such.  So on top of no one who looked at it recognizing it as a palm print Sheila would not have been able to leave a palm print of such size because her whole inside of her hand would have to have been absolutely covered in blood.       

[Caroline]

I already showed you.  If you paid attention you also would have noticed the mention of nicotine staining which you keep attacking lookout not having a source for.




He referred to the blood on the outside of her hand as being on her wrist and said that is how the blood transferred to her gown.  He said her fingers and inside of her hands were free of blood.  That is if one actually wants to understand what he wrote as opposed to deciding to incorrectly interpret it for their own purposes. NOT in his notes - he said P-A-L-M!

There is an inside palm and outside palm. The outside palm is adjacent to the outer wrist and often simply included with the wrist depending if speaking about both.  Bollocks!       

Look at the lab reports.  If you can't get a hold of them then ask Mike if he won't provide them then you are stuck with just knowing the lab personnel tasked with it.  MadDonnell among others were shown the photos of the insides of her hands and they said the photos showed her hands to be clean. Where did you get hold of them? If you have them you post them or is thus just bluster?

Like the lab personnel whose job it was to physically inspect the Bible looking for prints it was Sutherst's job to physically inspect the mantle in person to look for scratches?

No Sutherst blew up low quality photos of items that were distant in such photos. 

What happened to Sutherst is he engaged in the same kind of nonsense speculation you engage in without any basis at all to do so.  You are in no greater position than Sutherst was to challenge the experts and in fact an even lesser position than he was.  There were no close ups of the mantle but there were close up photos of her hand showing them clean you haven't seen them because you have no cause to be provided with them.  You're the one talking nonsense suggesting that wrist and palm are the same thing!! 


Vanesis doesn't think they were finger shaped he said her wrist made them.  Blowing them up doesn't help at all it is as much of a waste as blowing up the Bible and trying to say you know what made the marks. I'll stick with those who actually inspected the items in person. I don't CARE what Venezis though t because according to you he doesn't know his wrist from his palm!

Oh and I know he said WRIST but he didn't say OUTSIDE of hand!! YOU are saying that and (ONCE AGAIN) a wrist and a palm are two VERY DIFFERENT things. I also know he mentioned NICOTINE - THAT is also in the written version.

[Caroline]

The experts who spoke to the Court of Appeals referecnced photos showing blood underneat that very locaiton of the Bible.  You want to pretend the blood was simply above the Bible but it was underneath it as well. The bible was sitting in blood.

What the court was told was that they assessed the Bible was placed on top of this blood AFTER it deposited.  One of those who shared this opinion told this very opinion to the defense- Leon MacDonnell.

They are NOT the only ones who have this opinion the opinion was shared by the lab personnel who examined the Bible for prints and found no prints of any kind in blood.  They physically looked at that blood stain and saw no features that would indicate it was a palm print.   

Lot's of things can look like a palm or finger print from a distance- men look like girls from a distance- Nevill appeared to be a woman from a distance.

Those who saw the inside of her hands said they were free of blood and photos confirm such.  So on top of no one who looked at it recognizing it as a palm print Sheila would not have been able to leave a palm print of such size because her whole inside of her hand would have to have been absolutely covered in blood.     

Yes, lots of things can look like a palm print and one thing that definitely looks like on - is a PALM PRINT. You keep telling me about experts and yet you can't point me to any documentation on the subject. You stick with your experts and leave me to have free thought!